Well, technically it’s not censorship as understood in law, as it’s not a government entity doing the restricting. It’s purely a business decision that, as you note, trades free expression for some form of financial or legal security as envisioned by Apple. I mean, yeah, you can say Apple is censoring things, but to me that’s not terribly informative, as businesses always choose which things to sell or feature and which things they eschew. Stores stock some merchandise, and not others, and rarely do we know why. In this case, we do know why, which is what makes it much more visible.
I generally draw a clear line between what a business does and what a government does. It does not make Apple’s decision any less idiotic and odious, but to me it’s just another example of what happens when people don’t actually read John Stuart Mill :). I doubt anyone at Apple has.